The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop

Chapter I
Distinctive Character of the Two Systems

In leading proof of the Babylonian character of
the Papal Church the first point to which I solicit the reader's attention, is the
character of MYSTERY which attaches alike to the modern Roman and the ancient Babylonian
systems. The gigantic system of moral corruption and idolatry described in this passage
under the emblem of a woman with a "GOLDEN CUP IN HER HAND" (Rev 17:4),
"making all nations DRUNK with the wine of her fornication" (Rev 17:2; 18:3), is
divinely called "MYSTERY, Babylon the Great" (Rev 17:5). That Paul's
"MYSTERY of iniquity," as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, has its counterpart
in the Church of Rome, no man of candid mind, who has carefully examined the subject, can
easily doubt. Such was the impression made by that account on the mind of the great Sir
Matthew Hale, no mean judge of evidence, that he used to say, that if the apostolic
description were inserted in the public "Hue and Cry" any constable in the realm
would be warranted in seizing, wherever he found him, the bishop of Rome as the head of
that "MYSTERY of iniquity." Now, as the system here described is equally
characterised by the name of "MYSTERY," it may be presumed that both passages
refer to the same system. But the language applied to the New Testament Babylon, as the
reader cannot fail to see, naturally leads us back to the Babylon of the ancient world. As
the Apocalyptic woman has in her hand A CUP, wherewith she intoxicates the nations, so was
it with the Babylon of old. Of that Babylon, while in all its glory, the Lord thus spake,
in denouncing its doom by the prophet Jeremiah: "Babylon hath been a GOLDEN CUP in
the Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine;
therefore the nations are mad" (Jer 51:7). Why this exact similarity of language in
regard to the two systems? The natural inference surely is, that the one stands to the
other in the relation of type and antitype. Now, as the Babylon of the Apocalypse is
characterised by the name of "MYSTERY," so the grand distinguishing feature of
the ancient Babylonian system was the Chaldean "MYSTERIES," that formed so
essential a part of that system. And to these mysteries, the very language of the Hebrew
prophet, symbolical though of course it is, distinctly alludes, when he speaks of Babylon
as a "golden CUP." To drink of "mysterious beverages," says Salverte,
was indispensable on the part of all who sought initiation in these Mysteries. These
"mysterious beverages" were composed of "wine, honey, water, and
flour." From the ingredients avowedly used, and from the nature of others not avowed,
but certainly used, there can be no doubt that they were of an intoxicating nature; and
till the aspirants had come under their power, till their understandings had been dimmed,
and their passions excited by the medicated draught, they were not duly prepared for what
they were either to hear or to see. If it be inquired what was the object and design of
these ancient "Mysteries," it will be found that there was a wonderful analogy
between them and that "Mystery of iniquity" which is embodied in the Church of
Rome. Their primary object was to introduce privately, by little and little, under the
seal of secrecy and the sanction of an oath, what it would not have been safe all at once
and openly to propound. The time at which they were instituted proved that this
must have been the case. The Chaldean Mysteries can be traced up to the days of Semiramis,
who lived only a few centuries after the flood, and who is known to have impressed upon
them the image of her own depraved and polluted mind. *

* AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS compared with JUSTINUS, Historia
and EUSEBIUS' Chronicle. Eusebius says that Ninus and Semiramis reigned in the time
of Abraham.

That beautiful but abandoned queen of Babylon was
not only herself a paragon of unbridled lust and licentiousness, but in the Mysteries
which she had a chief hand in forming, she was worshipped as Rhea, the great
"MOTHER" of the gods, with such atrocious rites as identified her with Venus,
the MOTHER of all impurity, and raised the very city where she had reigned to a bad
eminence among the nations, as the grand seat at once of idolatry and consecrated
prostitution. *

* A correspondent has pointed out a reference by
Pliny to the cup of Semiramis, which fell into the hands of the victorious Cyrus. Its
gigantic proportions must have made it famous among the Babylonians and the nations with
whom they had intercourse. It weighed fifteen talents, or 1200 pounds. PLINII, Hist.
Nat.

Thus was this Chaldean queen a fit and remarkable
prototype of the "Woman" in the Apocalypse, with the golden cup in her
hand, and the name on her forehead, "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the MOTHER of
harlots and abominations of the earth." (Fig. 1)
The Apocalyptic emblem of the Harlot woman with the cup in her hand was even embodied in
the symbols of idolatry, derived from ancient Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece;
for thus was the Greek Venus originally represented, (see note below) and it is singular that in our own day, and so far
as appears for the first time, the Roman Church has actually taken this very symbol as her
own chosen emblem. In 1825, on occasion of the jubilee, Pope Leo XII struck a medal,
bearing on the one side his own image, and on the other, that of the Church of Rome
symbolised as a "Woman," holding in her left hand a cross, and in her right a
CUP, with the legend around her, "Sedet super universum," "The whole
world is her seat." (Fig. 2) Now the
period when Semiramis lived,--a period when the patriarchal faith was still fresh in the
minds of men, when Shem was still alive, * to rouse the minds of the faithful to rally
around the banner for the truth and cause of God, made it hazardous all at once and
publicly to set up such a system as was inaugurated by the Babylonian queen.

* For the age of Shem see Genesis 11:10, 11.
According to this, Shem lived 502 years after the flood, that is, according to the Hebrew
chronology, till BC 1846. The age of Ninus, the husband of Semiramis, as stated in a
former note, according to Eusebius, synchronised with that of Abraham, who was born BC
1996. It was only about nine years, however, before the end of the reign of Ninus, that
the birth of Abraham is said to have taken place. (SYNCELLUS) Consequently, on this view,
the reign of Ninus must have terminated, according to the usual chronology, about BC 1987.
Clinton, who is of high authority in chronology, places the reign of Ninus somewhat
earlier. In his Fasti Hellenici he makes his age to have been BC 2182. Layard (in
his Nineveh and its Remains) subscribes to this opinion. Semiramis is said to have
survived her husband forty-two years. (SYNCELL) Whatever view, therefore, be adopted in
regard to the age of Ninus, whether that of Eusebius, or that at which Clinton and Layard
have arrived, it is evident that Shem long survived both Ninus and his wife. Of course,
this argument proceeds on the supposition of the correctness of the Hebrew chronology. For
conclusive evidence on that subject, see note
2 below.

We know, from the statements in Job, that among
patriarchal tribes that had nothing whatever to do with Mosaic institutions, but which
adhered to the pure faith of the patriarchs, idolatry in any shape was held to be a crime,
to be visited with signal and summary punishment on the heads of those who practised it.
"If I beheld the sun," said Job, "when it shined, or the moon walking in
brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, and * my mouth hath kissed my hand; this
also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge; for I should have denied the God
that is above" (Job 31:26-28).

* That which I have rendered "and"
is in the authorised version "or," but there is no reason for such a rendering,
for the word in the original is the very same as that which connects the previous clause,
"and my heart," &c.

Now if this was the case in Job's day, much more
must it have been the case at the earlier period when the Mysteries were instituted. It
was a matter, therefore, of necessity, if idolatry were to be brought in, and especially
such foul idolatry as the Babylonian system contained in its bosom, that it should be done
stealthily and in secret. *

* It will be seen by-and-by what cogent reason
there was, in point of fact, for the profoundest secrecy in the matter. See Chapter
II

Even though introduced by the hand of power, it
might have produced a revulsion, and violent attempts might have been made by the
uncorrupted portion of mankind to put it down; and at all events, if it had appeared at
once in all its hideousness, it would have alarmed the consciences of men, and defeated
the very object in view. That object was to bind all mankind in blind and absolute
submission to a hierarchy entirely dependent on the sovereigns of Babylon. In the carrying
out of this scheme, all knowledge, sacred and profane, came to be monopolised by the
priesthood, who dealt it out to those who were initiated in the "Mysteries"
exactly as they saw fit, according as the interests of the grand system of spiritual
despotism they had to administer might seem to require. Thus the people, wherever the
Babylonian system spread, were bound neck and heel to the priests. The priests were the
only depositaries of religious knowledge; they only had the true tradition by which the
writs and symbols of the public religion could be interpreted; and without blind and
implicit submission to them, what was necessary for salvation could not be known. Now
compare this with the early history of the Papacy, and with its spirit and modus operandi
throughout, and how exact was the coincidence! Was it in a period of patriarchal light
that the corrupt system of the Babylonian "Mysteries" began? It was in a period
of still greater light that that unholy and unscriptural system commenced, that has found
such rank development in the Church of Rome. It began in the very age of the apostles,
when the primitive Church was in its flower, when the glorious fruits of Pentecost were
everywhere to be seen, when martyrs were sealing their testimony for the truth with their
blood. Even then, when the Gospel shone so brightly, the Spirit of God bore this clear and
distinct testimony by Paul: "THE MYSTERY OF INIQUITY DOTH ALREADY WORK" (2 Thess
2:7). That system of iniquity which then began it was divinely foretold was to issue in a
portentous apostacy, that in due time would be awfully "revealed," and would
continue until it should be destroyed "by the breath of the Lord's mouth, and
consumed by the brightness of His coming." But at its first introduction into the
Church, it came in secretly and by stealth, with "all DECEIVABLENESS of
unrighteousness." It wrought "mysteriously" under fair but false pretences,
leading men away from the simplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus. And it did so
secretly, for the very same reason that idolatry was secretly introduced in the ancient
Mysteries of Babylon; it was not safe, it was not prudent to do otherwise. The zeal of the
true Church, though destitute of civil power, would have aroused itself, to put the false
system and all its abettors beyond the pale of Christianity, if it had appeared openly and
all at once in all its grossness; and this would have arrested its progress. Therefore it
was brought in secretly, and by little and little, one corruption being introduced after
another, as apostacy proceeded, and the backsliding Church became prepared to tolerate it,
till it has reached the gigantic height we now see, when in almost every particular the
system of the Papacy is the very antipodes of the system of the primitive Church. Of the gradual
introduction of all that is now most characteristic of Rome, through the working of the
"Mystery of iniquity," we have very striking evidence, preserved even by
Rome itself, in the inscriptions copied from the Roman catacombs. These catacombs are
extensive excavations underground in the neighbourhood of Rome, in which the Christians,
in times of persecution during the first three centuries, celebrated their worship, and
also buried their dead. On some of the tombstones there are inscriptions still to be
found, which are directly in the teeth of the now well-known principles and practices of
Rome. Take only one example: What, for instance, at this day is a more distinguishing mark
of the Papacy than the enforced celibacy of the clergy? Yet from these inscriptions we
have most decisive evidence, that even in Rome, there was a time when no such system of
clerical celibacy was known. Witness the following, found on different tombs:

1. "To Basilius, the presbyter, and
Felicitas, his wife. They made this for themselves."

2. "Petronia, a priest's wife, the
type of modesty. In this place I lay my bones. Spare your tears, dear husband and
daughter, and believe that it is forbidden to weep for one who lives in God." (DR.
MAITLAND'S Church in the Catacombs) A prayer here and there for the dead: "May
God refresh thy spirit," proves that even then the Mystery of iniquity had begun
to work; but inscriptions such as the above equally show that it had been slowly and
cautiously working,--that up to the period to which they refer, the Roman Church had not
proceeded the length it has done now, of absolutely "forbidding its priests to
'marry.'" Craftily and gradually did Rome lay the foundation of its system of
priestcraft, on which it was afterwards to rear so vast a superstructure. At its
commencement, "Mystery" was stamped upon its system.

But this feature of "Mystery" has
adhered to it throughout its whole course. When it had once succeeded in dimming the light
of the Gospel, obscuring the fulness and freeness of the grace of God, and drawing away
the souls of men from direct and immediate dealings with the One Grand Prophet and High
Priest of our profession, a mysterious power was attributed to the clergy, which gave them
"dominion over the faith" of the people--a dominion directly disclaimed by
apostolic men (2 Cor 1:24), but which, in connection with the confessional, has become at
least as absolute and complete as was ever possessed by Babylonian priest over those
initiated in the ancient Mysteries. The clerical power of the Roman priesthood culminated
in the erection of the confessional. That confessional was itself borrowed from Babylon.
The confession required of the votaries of Rome is entirely different from the confession
prescribed in the Word of God. The dictate of Scripture in regard to confession is,
"Confess your faults one to another" (James 5:16), which implies that the
priest should confess to the people, as well as the people to the priest, if either should
sin against the other. This could never have served any purpose of spiritual despotism;
and therefore, Rome, leaving the Word of God, has had recourse to the Babylonian system.
In that system, secret confession to the priest, according to a prescribed form, was
required of all who were admitted to the "Mysteries"; and till such confession
had been made, no complete initiation could take place. Thus does Salverte refer to this
confession as observed in Greece, in rites that can be clearly traced to a Babylonian
origin: "All the Greeks, from Delphi to Thermopylae, were initiated in the Mysteries
of the temple of Delphi. Their silence in regard to everything they were commanded to keep
secret was secured both by the fear of the penalties threatened to a perjured revelation,
and by the general CONFESSION exacted of the aspirants after initiation--a confession
which caused them greater dread of the indiscretion of the priest, than gave him
reason to dread their indiscretion." This confession is also referred to by
Potter, in his "Greek Antiquities," though it has been generally overlooked. In
his account of the Eleusinian mysteries, after describing the preliminary ceremonies and
instructions before the admission of the candidates for initiation into the immediate
presence of the divinities, he thus proceeds: "Then the priest that initiated them
called the Hierophant, proposed certain QUESTIONs, as, whether they were fasting, &c.,
to which they returned answers in a set form." The etcetera here might not strike a
casual reader; but it is a pregnant etcetera, and contains a great deal. It means, Are you
free from every violation of chastity? and that not merely in the sense of moral impurity,
but in that factitious sense of chastity which Paganism always cherishes. Are you free
from the guilt of murder?--for no one guilty of slaughter, even accidentally, could be
admitted till he was purged from blood, and there were certain priests, called Koes, who
"heard confessions" in such cases, and purged the guilt away. The strictness of
the inquiries in the Pagan confessional is evidently implied in certain licentious poems
of Propertius, Tibullus, and Juvenal. Wilkinson, in his chapter on "Private Fasts and
Penance," which, he says, "were strictly enforced," in connection with
"certain regulations at fixed periods," has several classical quotations, which
clearly prove whence Popery derived the kind of questions which have stamped that
character of obscenity on its confessional, as exhibited in the notorious pages of Peter
Dens. The pretence under which this auricular confession was required, was, that the
solemnities to which the initiated were to be admitted were so high, so heavenly, so holy,
that no man with guilt lying on his conscience, and sin unpurged, could lawfully be
admitted to them. For the safety, therefore of those who were to be initiated, it was held
to be indispensable that the officiating priest should thoroughly probe their consciences,
lest coming without due purgation from previous guilt contracted, the wrath of the gods
should be provoked against the profane intruders. This was the pretence; but when we know
the essentially unholy nature, both of the gods and their worship, who can fail to see
that this was nothing more than a pretence; that the grand object in requiring the
candidates for initiation to make confession to the priest of all their secret faults and
shortcomings and sins, was just to put them entirely in the power of those to whom the
inmost feelings of their souls and their most important secrets were confided? Now,
exactly in the same way, and for the very same purposes, has Rome erected the
confessional. Instead of requiring priests and people alike, as the Scripture does, to
"confess their faults one to another," when either have offended the other, it
commands all, on pain of perdition, to confess to the priest, * whether they have
transgressed against him or no, while the priest is under no obligation to confess to the
people at all.

* BISHOP HAY'S Sincere Christian. In this
work, the following question and answer occur: "Q. Is this confession of our sins
necessary for obtaining absolution? A. It is ordained by Jesus Christ as absolutely
necessary for this purpose." See also Poor Man's Manual, a work in use in
Ireland.

Without such confession, in the Church of Rome,
there can be no admission to the Sacraments, any more than in the days of Paganism there
could be admission without confession to the benefit of the Mysteries. Now, this
confession is made by every individual, in SECRECY AND IN SOLITUDE, to the priest sitting
in the name and clothed with the authority of God, invested with the power to examine the
conscience, to judge the life, to absolve or condemn according to his mere arbitrary will
and pleasure. This is the grand pivot on which the whole "Mystery of iniquity,"
as embodied in the Papacy, is made to turn; and wherever it is submitted to, admirably
does it serve the design of binding men in abject subjection to the priesthood.

In conformity with the principle out of which the
confessional grew, the Church, that is, the clergy, claimed to be the sole depositaries of
the true faith of Christianity. As the Chaldean priests were believed alone to possess the
key to the understanding of the Mythology of Babylon, a key handed down to them from
primeval antiquity, so the priests of Rome set up to be the sole interpreters of
Scripture; they only had the true tradition, transmitted from age to age, without which it
was impossible to arrive at its true meaning. They, therefore, require implicit faith in
their dogmas; all men were bound to believe as the Church believed, while the Church in
this way could shape its faith as it pleased. As possessing supreme authority, also, over
the faith, they could let out little or much, as they judged most expedient; and
"RESERVE" in teaching the great truths of religion was as essential a principle
in the system of Babylon, as it is in Romanism or Tractariansim at this day. * It was this
priestly claim to dominion over the faith of men, that "imprisoned the truth in
unrighteousness" ** in the ancient world, so that "darkness covered the earth,
and gross darkness the people." It was the very same claim, in the hands of the Roman
priests, that ushered in the dark ages, when, through many a dreary century, the Gospel
was unknown, and the Bible a sealed book to millions who bore the name of Christ. In every
respect, then, we see how justly Rome bears on its forehead the name, "Mystery,
Babylon the Great."

* Even among the initiated there was a
difference. Some were admitted only to the "Lesser Mysteries"; the
"Greater" were for a favoured few. WILKINSON'S Ancient Egyptians

** Romans 1:18. The best interpreters render the
passage as given above. It will be observed Paul is expressly speaking of the heathen.

Notes

In Pausanias we find an account of a goddess
represented in the very attitude of the Apocalyptic "Woman." "But of this
stone [Parian marble] Phidias," says he, "made a statue of Nemesis; and on the
head of the goddess there is a crown adorned with stags, and images of victory of no great
magnitude. In her left hand, too, she holds a branch of an ash tree, and in her right A
CUP, in which Ethiopians are carved." (PAUSANIAS, Attica) Pausanias declares
himself unable to assign any reason why "the Ethiopians" were carved on
the cup; but the meaning of the Ethiopians and the stags too will be apparent to all who
read further. We find, however, from statements made in the same chapter, that though
Nemesis is commonly represented as the goddess of revenge, she must have been also known
in quite a different character. Thus Pausanias proceeds, commenting on the statue:
"But neither has this statue of the goddess wings. Among the Smyrneans, however, who
possess the most holy images of Nemesis, I perceived afterwards that these statues had
wings. For, as this goddess principally pertains to lovers, on this account they
may be supposed to have given wings to Nemesis, as well as to love," i.e., Cupid. The
giving of wings to Nemesis, the goddess who "principally pertained to lovers,"
because Cupid, the god of love, bore them, implies that, in the opinion of
Pausanias, she was the counterpart of Cupid, or the goddess of love--that
is, Venus. While this is the inference naturally to be deduced from the words of
Pausanias, we find it confirmed by an express statement of Photius, speaking of the statue
of Rhamnusian Nemesis: "She was at first erected in the form of Venus, and therefore
bore also the branch of an apple tree." (PHOTII, Lexicon) Though a goddess of
love and a goddess of revenge might seem very remote in their characters from one another,
yet it is not difficult to see how this must have come about. The goddess who was revealed
to the initiated in the Mysteries, in the most alluring manner, was also known to be most
unmerciful and unrelenting in taking vengeance upon those who revealed these Mysteries;
for every such one who was discovered was unsparingly put to death. (POTTER'S Antiquities,
"Eleusinia") Thus, then, the cup-bearing goddess was at once Venus, the goddess
of licentiousness, and Nemesis, the stern and unmerciful one to all who rebelled against
her authority. How remarkable a type of the woman, whom John saw, described in one aspect
as the "Mother of harlots," and in another as "Drunken with the blood of
the saints"!

Dr. Hales has attempted to substitute the longer
chronology of the Septuagint for the Hebrew chronology. But this implies that the Hebrew
Church, as a body, was not faithful to the trust committed to it in respect to the keeping
of the Scriptures, which seems distinctly opposed to the testimony of our Lord in
reference to these Scriptures (John 5:39; 10:35), and also to that of Paul (Rom 3:2),
where there is not the least hint of unfaithfulness. Then we can find a reason that might
induce the translators of the Septuagint in Alexandria to 83 lengthen out the
period of the ancient history of the world; we can find no reason to induce the Jews in
Palestine to shorten it. The Egyptians had long, fabulous eras in their history,
and Jews dwelling in Egypt might wish to make their sacred history go as far back as they
could, and the addition of just one hundred years in each case, as in the Septuagint, to
the ages of the patriarchs, looks wonderfully like an intentional forgery; whereas we
cannot imagine why the Palestine Jews should make any change in regard to this matter at
all. It is well known that the Septuagint contains innumerable gross errors and
interpolations.

Bunsen casts overboard all Scriptural
chronology whatever, whether Hebrew, Samaritan, or Greek, and sets up the unsupported
dynasties of Manetho, as if they were sufficient to over-ride the Divine word as to a
question of historical fact. But, if the Scriptures are not historically true, we can have
no assurance of their truth at all. Now it is worthy of notice that, though Herodotus
vouches for the fact that at one time there were no fewer than twelve contemporaneous
kings in Egypt, Manetho, as observed by Wilkinson, has made no allusion to this, but has
made his Thinite, Memphite, and Diospolitan dynasties of kings, and a long etcetera of
other dynasties, all successive!

The period over which the dynasties of Manetho
extend, beginning with Menes, the first king of these dynasties, is in itself a very
lengthened period, and surpassing all rational belief. But Bunsen, not content with this,
expresses his very confident persuasion that there had been long lines of powerful
monarchs in Upper and Lower Egypt, "during a period of from two to four thousand
years," even before the reign of Menes. In coming to such a conclusion, he plainly
goes upon the supposition that the name Mizraim, which is the Scriptural name of the land
of Egypt, and is evidently derived from the name of the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah,
is not, after all, the name of a person, but the name of the united kingdom
formed under Menes out of "the two Misr," "Upper and Lower Egypt,"
which had previously existed as separate kingdoms, the name Misrim, according to
him, being a plural word. This derivation of the name Mizraim, or Misrim, as a plural
word, infallibly leaves the impression that Mizraim, the son of Ham, must be only a
mythical personage. But there is no real reason for thinking that Mizraim is a plural
word, or that it became the name of "the land of Ham," from any other reason
than because that land was also the land of Ham's son. Mizraim, as it stands in the Hebrew
of Genesis, without the points, is Metzrim; and Metzr-im signifies "The encloser or
embanker of the sea" (the word being derived from Im, the same as Yam,
"the sea," and Tzr, "to enclose," with the formative M
prefixed).

If the accounts which ancient history has handed
down to us of the original state of Egypt be correct, the first man who formed a
settlement there must have done the very thing implied in this name. Diodorus
Siculus tells us that, in primitive times, that which, when he wrote, "was Egypt, was
said to have been not a country, but one universal sea." Plutarch also says (De
Iside) that Egypt was sea. From Herodotus, too, we have very striking evidence to the
same effect. He excepts the province of Thebes from his statement; but when it is seen
that "the province of Thebes" did not belong to Mizraim, or Egypt proper, which,
says the author of the article "Mizraim" in Biblical Cyclopoedia,
"properly denotes Lower Egypt"; the testimony of Herodotus will be seen entirely
to agree with that of Diodorus and Plutarch. His statement is, that in the reign of the
first king, "the whole of Egypt (except the province of Thebes) was an extended
marsh. No part of that which is now situate beyond the lake Moeris was to be seen, the
distance between which lake and the sea is a journey of seven days." Thus all Mizraim
or Lower Egypt was under water.

This state of the country arose from the
unrestrained overflowing of the Nile, which, to adopt the language of Wilkinson,
"formerly washed the foot of the sandy mountains of the Lybian chain." Now,
before Egypt could be fit for being a suitable place for human abode--before it could
become what it afterwards did become, one of the most fertile of all lands, it was
indispensable that bounds should be set to the overflowings of the sea (for by the
very name of the Ocean, or Sea, the Nile was anciently called--DIODORUS), and that for
this purpose great embankments should enclose or confine its waters. If
Ham's son, then, led a colony into Lower Egypt and settled it there, this very work he
must have done. And what more natural than that a name should be given him in memory of
his great achievement? and what name so exactly descriptive as Metzr-im, "The
embanker of the sea," or as the name is found at this day applied to all Egypt
(WILKINSON), Musr or Misr? Names always tend to abbreviation in the mouths of a people,
and, therefore, "The land of Misr" is evidently just "The land of the
embanker." From this statement it follows that the "embanking of the
sea"--the "enclosing" of it within certain bounds, was the making of
it as a river, so far as Lower Egypt was concerned. Viewing the matter in this
light, what a meaning is there in the Divine language in Ezekiel 29:3, where judgments are
denounced against the king of Egypt, the representative of Metzr-im, "The embanker of
the sea," for his pride: "Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the
great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which saith, My river is mine own, I
have made it for myself."

When we turn to what is recorded of the doings of
Menes, who, by Herodotus, Manetho, and Diodorus alike, is made the first historical king
of Egypt, and compare what is said of him, with this simple explanation of the
meaning of the name of Mizraim, how does the one cast light on the other? Thus does
Wilkinson describe the great work which entailed fame on Menes, "who," says he,
"is allowed by universal consent to have been the first sovereign of the
country." "Having diverted the course of the Nile, which formerly washed the
foot of the sandy mountains of the Lybian chain, he obliged it to run in the centre of the
valley, nearly at an equal distance between the two parallel ridges of mountains which
border it on the east and west; and built the city of Memphis in the bed of the ancient
channel. This change was effected by constructing a dyke about a hundred stadia above the
site of the projected city, whose lofty mounds and strong EMBANKMENTS turned the water to
the eastward, and effectually CONFINED the river to its new bed. The dyke was carefully
kept in repair by succeeding kings; and, even as late as the Persian invasion, a guard was
always maintained there, to overlook the necessary repairs, and to watch over the state of
the embankments." (Egyptians)

When we see that Menes, the first of the
acknowledged historical kings of Egypt, accomplished that very achievement which is
implied in the name of Mizraim, who can resist the conclusion that menes and Mizraim are
only two different names for the same person? And if so, what becomes of Bunsen's vision
of powerful dynasties of sovereigns "during a period of from two to four thousand
years" before the reign of Menes, by which all Scriptural chronology respecting Noah
and his sons was to be upset, when it turns out that Menes must have been Mizraim, the
grandson of Noah himself? Thus does Scripture contain, within its own bosom, the means of
vindicating itself; and thus do its minutest statements, even in regard to matters of
fact, when thoroughly understood, shed surprising light on the dark parts of the history
of the world.